Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

"We will bomb Iran"........by Ed Garvey, "Fightingbob.com"

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
a kennedy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-12-07 08:50 AM
Original message
"We will bomb Iran"........by Ed Garvey, "Fightingbob.com"
In the April 17,2006 issue of The New Yorker, award-winning journalist Seymour Hersh shocked many of us with his expose of the neocon plans to bomb Iran with bunker-buster nukes. The premise is on "the belief that a sustained bombing campaign in Iran will humiliate the religious leadership and lead the public to rise up and overthrow the government." The official who confided in Hersh asked,"what are they smoking?" (Remember LBJ telling us that bombing Hanoi would bring them to the bargaining table? Now deceased Mass. Senator Saltenstall responded, "When they bombed Pearl Harbor our first instinct was not to negotiate. We were all mad as hell.")

Get this. "The President has quietly initiated a series of talks on plans for Iran with a few key key members of Congress, including at least one Democrat. (Lemme ask. Could it possibly be neocon Joe Lieberman?)

Hersh described the planning in April of 2006, as "hectic." And here is my Whoa Nelly moment.

Hersh quotes an official: "There's no pressure from Congress not to take military action. The only political pressure is from the guys who want to do it." ("It" is the bombing of Iran.)

Why am I convinced the United States will attack Iran? Read Norman Podhoretz in the June issue of Commentary where he describes WW IV. Norman Podhoretz would, in normal times, be described as the lunatic fringe of the neocon movement but these are not normal times. In essence, after comparing Ahmadinejad with Hitler, and accusing those of us who think diplomacy not nukes should provide a better answer as impotent and appeasers, he warns of the destruction of Israel unless we nuke 'em. Yikes!

http://www.fightingbob.com/weblog.cfm

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Philosoraptor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-12-07 08:57 AM
Response to Original message
1. If it were to protect Israel, Americans would probably go for it.
That seems to be the logic anyway, if you can call it logic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ezlivin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-12-07 09:11 AM
Response to Reply #1
4. Why isn't Israel our 51st state?
We seem to give them more care and aid that we do to our own territories.

AIPAC is a tremendously powerful lobby and has many politicians scared to death of it.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dhalgren Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-12-07 09:07 AM
Response to Original message
2. It has gotten to the point where nothing makes sense and nothing doesn't make sense,
if that makes sense. Who on Earth are we? Why are we doing these horrible things? These are silly questions, but good questions, nonetheless. I am afraid that we are past the point of fixing this country through "normal" politics. If the US attacks Iran, how will we ever climb out of the hole that will create?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JHB Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-12-07 09:08 AM
Response to Original message
3. I'm inclined to think that the surest way to guarantee Israel's destruction...
Edited on Tue Jun-12-07 09:09 AM by JHB
...is to embark on exactly the course Podhoretz, the other neocons, and the whole "bomb Iran" crowd is advocating.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Norquist Nemesis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-12-07 09:12 AM
Response to Original message
5. Won't be surprised at all if Bush does it
Between adding naval ships with armaments pointed at Iran, putting an Admiral at the helm of CentCom to replace Abizaid, and most recently the appointment of Admiral Mullen as JCSC it's hard not to imagine Bush ordering a campaign originating from the Navy.

In the run-up to Iraq, as soon as it was announced that the military was being deployed it was obvious that all was a go. There just wasn't anyway that it was going to turn out any other way. Bush deploying hundreds of thousands of military personnel and equipment...he wasn't going to tell them to turn around and come home after sending them off.

It's looking very much the same for an Iran Campaign.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun May 05th 2024, 11:52 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC